Sorry about how I put my comment the first time. I should know not to speak in absolutes. You understood the video correctly. I personally wouldn't say "meet someone up", but I don't see any difference in meaning between it and "meet up with someone".

I have another question related to that sentence. A prescriptivist would say that that sentence is wrong because it should be "Amy told that she was going (not sure if was gonna exists, and don't know if a prescriptivist would accept it anyway) to meet me up", right? But in reality, how common is it to use the present is the subordinate clause even if the the main clause is in the simple past?

Last edited by IpseDixit on 2015-03-14, 18:25, edited 1 time in total.

IpseDixit wrote:I have another question related to that sentence. A prescriptivist would say that that sentence is wrong because it should be "Amy told that she was going (not sure if was gonna exists) to meet me up", right?

's can be an abbreviation of was as well as is (and has and does). Abbreviating was this way is less common, however.

And, yes, was gonna exists. This is what happens to is gonna when it gets put in the past.

ETA: Looking at it again, I noticed another wrinkle. I can't tell without more context whether the time when the meetup was supposed to take place has passed or not. If it hasn't, then present tense still makes sense. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_of_tenses#English.

"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

However it is also possible to use the natural sequence even if the main verb is past or conditional:

Batman said that he needs a special key for the Batmobile.

This option is more likely to be used when the circumstance being expressed remains equally true now as it did when the speech act took place, and especially if the person reporting the words agrees that they are true or valid.

That's exactly what I wanted to know. I wasn't sure whether that was just a "technically incorrect" colloquialism or something accepted in other registers as well.

IpseDixit wrote:Where's the difference between saying he's a Christian and he's Christian? Does one of the two sound ruder?

Here the difference is negligible, but there's a much-noted politeness cline for describing persons along which adjectives are more polite than nouns and verbal expressions are the most polite of all. Consider:

(2) is the most neutral and common statement to make IMD. (1) is impolite; it would generally only be used among people who know each other well enough to know it wouldn't cause offence. (The dated expression, "She's a Jewess" is so rude as to be off the charts.)

What explains the difference between "He's a Christian" and "She's a Jew"? History, I would argue. The vast majority of speakers did not and do not view identifying as Christian negatively. For instance, in 2008, only 3% of USAmericans surveyed reported "unfavorable" views of Christians generally and I'd wager that's an all-time high. In the same survey, 7% reported unfavourable views of Jews, which on the other hand represents an all-time low. (In 2002, it was 9%.)

Compare:

(4) He's a gay.(5) He's gay.(6) He has sex with men.

Again, (4) is so dated and offensive to be off the charts. (5) is neutral and (6) is only one possible way this could be formulated (since it includes men who have sex with men but do not identify as gay, for any number of reasons).

"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

I don't think he meant it that way. I find it a good thing to know too: I don't want to accidentally offend somebody in another language. Since linguo seems to have an interest in Italian lately, I don't think he was being sarcastic.